Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
LastLast
  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigbamboozal View Post
    Again! shocked you didn't take "who cares as long as she's capable ect".
    That's my official stance here, You havin an off day Semaphore?
    I don't really see the problem... It is an underrepresented minority achieving a milestone. When a group achieves something positive (political representation) for the first time, the group's entitled to being happy, and the rest of us are entitled to being happy for them.

    Perhaps the difference here is that I'm looking at this as an victory for bisexuals wheras you're focusing on the candidate herself.

  2. #222
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    26,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Engaging in intellectual nihilism
    That's one of the best euphemisms I've ever seen.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Both of those links don't provide any evidence. They make unsubstantiated statements

  3. #223
    The Insane Catta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Århus
    Posts
    17,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    That's one of the best euphemisms I've ever seen.
    Dont you use your fancy words to muddle the issue!

  4. #224
    This seems like an indisputably good thing.

  5. #225
    Bloodsail Admiral ranku's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    south carolina
    Posts
    651
    considering that many people who vote really only know who the presidential candidates are and randomly fill in the names for representatives, I'm sure that really here support is lower than people think and also...

    Quote Originally Posted by ohshift View Post
    Mess with someone's head enough, you can turn a scared little kid into an all powerful bitch.
    only two things are infinite the universe, and human stupidity,
    and i'm not too sure about the universe -Albert Einstein

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    Asking for something that goes beyond all necessary standards in science doesn't make your argument based on science, it means you don't believe what's in front of you.
    What asking for proof isn't scientific now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    Inductive vs. deductive.
    If it's not a representative sample and if it isn't replicated it's not proof.

    I'm really sorry if that isn't convenient for you, but it is what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    Being traditional doesn't mean anything other than it is traditional. Some traditions are stupid, some are not.
    We have to keep what works and take the positives out of everything otherwise we won't evolve.

    Some traditions have endured since the dawn of time, like men and women having families together. I see no reason to change that. You can argue that it is changing already, but I don't see men impregnating other men.

    Do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    So you want him to prove that it is provable? Use some logic and you'll come to the conclusion that it is provable yourself.
    No I meant it's not proven. What part of not proven don't you understand? Again, I am sorry if this conflicts with your worldview, but belief alone isn't going to make something real.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    Yeah, she sure is vicious.
    I'm glad we agree. I don't like bullies no matter what form they take.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    Watch out, she might prove you wrong...
    Feel free. I'm still waiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    Discouraging people from joining a debate isn't inherently bad.
    Yes it is. Everyone can contribute something to the discussion or at least learn from it. All we see here is one point of view being forced on everyone else.

    That's what we call fascism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    I think that's a rather good thing as it prevents time from being wasted on them as well as prevents them from humiliating themselves.
    So instead of having a friendly discussion where people can agree to disagree, all discussions have to result in belittling people and marginalizing opposing points of view.

    Welcome to the new left.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    It's amusing that you try to claim the side of science when you generalize in such a way. In my experience, everybody argues with everybody on here depending on the topic. It's also not like there are only two sides in an argument.
    Not bothering to argue something because you know that you can't represent it as well as somebody else isn't being weak.
    No you are weak if you can't or won't stand up for yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    I see you are one of the people that refuse to accept any flaws that capitalism has? Being the best so far doesn't make you the best that will ever be.
    Oh God, you are not one of those people are you?

    You don't actually have capitalism in the states. You have controlled markets for other people's benefit. You have monopolies owned by wannabe dynastic plutocrats.

    Competition always drives down costs. Recessions can be healthy because they force people to reinvent themselves.

    Without that, we'd still be living in caves. It's far from perfect, but unless resources become infinite somehow, there is no other alternative. If you decided to become a nation of hippies another country would simply take what it wants from you.

    Governments need to invest in people and actual growth industries with all the credit they are borrowing. Instead they are wasting it on whatever makes them more powerful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    What the fuck does pornography have to do with a bisexual politician? Logic, meet window, you are about to be thrown out of it.
    My point is a lot of people in the states were already open minded without needing to elect a poster child.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    It's not that a bisexual politician will be better, it's the fact that they were able to get elected is a sign of progress.
    Yeah and she was elected because of her sexuality and looks or because she's a good politician? Seriously, which would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    It isn't divisive to fight for the acceptance of different peoples into a subgroup, it is the opposite. No politician represents everyone in their actions, that is impossible. The other point being made here is that politicians fight to protect themselves more than anything.
    Taking pride from being different is divisive by default. People are forgetting that they are all Americans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    Who in the fuck is for uncontrolled immigration? Not the left, not the right, not anybody.
    You're being naive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    Did you just say 'false equivalency' while simultaneously saying that Lincoln was a Republican to support your argument?
    Civil rights and sexuality are two different topics.

    There's a difference between social engineering and simply doing the right thing. You want to force people to change sometimes into something they are not. I want them to open their eyes and change themselves. Intellectual fascism is not the way to do that. It will just make people even more defensive and cling to traditions to preserve their identity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    Most people is everyone?
    You got me there. It's still not true. Most people don't fall between the extremes, and you haven't proven it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    How is it biased?
    The sample wasn't impartial and broad enough.

    If I asked 1000 cocaine addicts if they thought that cocaine should be legal, their opinion doesn't speak for the rest of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    If you're going to speak in absolute terms and try to make being 10% gay into 100% gay, you shouldn't call other people bad at arguing semantics.
    You haven't presented any facts, you have just started arguments without backing them up to any logical degree.
    So prove to me that most people fall between the extremes of heterosexual and homosexual. Otherwise don't state it as a fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    It's your standards, and yours only.
    No. It's science.

    What part of I want proof don't you understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    No one else in actual science demands that.
    That's where you are wrong. Replicating results is the foundation of science. It's just not convenient for you in this one case, so you find other ways to win the argument without it.

    You have built a fortress on sand.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Because, unlike you, we understand statistics. Obscenely large sizes are not necessary to have an representative sample.
    Large, broad samples that don't focus on specific people but everyone are why they are called representative.

    We have to be thorough when it comes to things like this. There's always the risk of cultural bias etc contaminating the study. It simply needs to be large and repeated to verify the veracity of it.

    What you have done, is taken a small sample and compared to the 6+ billion people on the planet, then used it as the foundation of your argument. You have even convinced yourself that it's the truth.

    That's where we disagree. You're blinded by your own fantacism. That doesn't help your cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Do I have to tell you again that you're strawmaning? Because "most people" doesn't mean "everyone" to anyone with a gradeschool grasp of English, and "between the extremes" of sexual attraction doesn't at all mean one's bisexual. Stop feigning outrage at being called a bisexual when it's all in your head.
    Between the extremes of heterosexual and homosexual. What else does it mean then? That they are just a bit bi? That's more or less the same thing; it's bisexuality only to a degree.

    And yeah, you said most people. Forgive the typo!

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Burden of proof is on you to show it is biased and unrepresentative. Baseless and meaninglessly vague attacks are not science, but we all know you don't know anything about science.
    You don't know anything about me. Also, it is a biased unrepresentative sample. You are more than welcome to show me an unbiased representative study. The people who fund these studies usually have a political axe to grind so they can't always be trusted.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    No, I openly claimed that sexuality is nuanced right from the very start. You're the one arguing that it is three distinct groups only.
    Straight, gay, mostly straight but a bit bi. Sexually bi but emotionally straight. The last two still qualify as bisexual.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    The fact remains that sexuality is not three discrete dichotomous groups.
    Edit: Even though sexuality is a spectrum, you don't want to accept that the majority of people are pure heterosexuals.

    I accept different sexualities. I just don't see any compelling reason why you'd want to believe that most people fall between the extremes. I am betting that it just happens to fit your world view and is good in winning arguments against uninformed people.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Afraid of certain tendencies much?
    Oh believe me, if I were even a bit gay it would make life a hell of a lot easier. I've met a lot of great guys who are passionate and smart etc, but they just aren't my type.

    I encourage individuality. I don't want people to be mindless drones who just agree with the rest of the herd like you seem to want.
    Last edited by Garian; 2012-11-27 at 03:12 AM.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Garian View Post
    What asking for proof isn't scientific now?
    Prove to me that you exist. You can't just respond, you need to show me that every atom in your body exists.

    Not going to bother to respond to the rest of your post because it isn't worth the time.

  8. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by Garian View Post
    Large, broad samples that don't focus on specific people but everyone are why they are called representative.
    A large study is one in the thousands. A sample of hundreds of thousands like you insist on having is frankly beyond ridiculous and belays either 1) a complete lack of understanding of science and statistics in general, or 2) ad hoc reasoning to rejrect offered scientific evidence. Or probably both.


    Also, it is a biased unrepresentative sample.
    Repeatedly asserting a statmeent without providng any evidence, doesn't make it true.


    Between the extremes of heterosexual and homosexual. What else does it mean then? That they are just a bit bi? <...> Straight, gay, mostly straight but a bit bi. Sexually bi but emotionally straight. The last two still qualify as bisexual.
    Only because you shoehorned it in as such. I wouldn't consider being mostly attracted to a single gender only as being bisexual, and that's why I do not call most people bisexual - regardless of how much you want to pretend I did. To say "a bit bi" is the same as saying "a bit straight" or "a bit gay".


    that the majority of people are pure heterosexuals.
    Prove it. You have supplied zero evidence for this claim so far. Stupidly transparent logical fallacies like "well you have a father and mother!?" doesn't count as evidence.


    I just don't see any compelling reason why you'd want to believe that most people fall between the extremes.
    I don't particularly want to believe it. I simply have no vested interest in disbelieving it, and thus the scientific evidence lead me to believe this is probably the case. Frankly, given any sort of understanding of human nature (or just nature in general), the idea that anything would stand at the extremes rather than some degrees in between is always rather baffling. It is not at all the reasonable assumption to make if it weren't for the long standing hostility towards homosexuality in western culture (which is thankfully dying out).


    I am betting that it just happens to fit your world view
    I'll take that bet. I don't even know how you think my understanding of sexuality "fit" my world view, because it sure as hell looks completely unrelated to me.
    Last edited by semaphore; 2012-11-27 at 05:25 AM.

  9. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    A large study is one in the thousands. A sample of hundreds of thousands like you insist on having is frankly beyond ridiculous and belays either 1) a complete lack of understanding of science and statistics in general, or 2) ad hoc reasoning to rejrect offered scientific evidence. Or probably both.
    No Semaphore, asking for proof through repetition is science.

    A small sample of a thousand people does not and cannot speak for 6 billion people.

    It is simply unfair to generalize.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Repeatedly asserting a statmeent without providng any evidence, doesn't make it true.
    I am stating a fact. It's an unrepresentative sample. It's biased on my opinion. You are certainly biased because you state it as a fact and use it as the foundation of your argument.

    In your mind, the debate is over.

    That's not science Semaphore. You are being an ideological fascist.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Only because you shoehorned it in as such. I wouldn't consider being mostly attracted to a single gender only as being bisexual...
    But such a person would be bisexual, just to a limited degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    ...and that's why I do not call most people bisexual - regardless of how much you want to pretend I did. To say "a bit bi" is the same as saying "a bit straight" or "a bit gay".
    You said that most people fall between the extremes. That's where you are wrong. You are not seeing things from my point of view, that's the problem here.

    If you accept that most people are straight, which you refuse to do, then you will see what I mean.

    I have absolutely nothing against people with different sexualities as long as they aren't hurting others. Go wild. I've known people who have experimented only to reach the conclusion that they were straight. I just don't see why you have to convince yourself and make others believe that most people fall between the extremes. It doesn't help your cause.

    It's unnecessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Prove it. You have supplied zero evidence for this claim so far. Stupidly transparent logical fallacies like "well you have a father and mother!?" doesn't count as evidence.
    It actually does Semaphore. It proves that we are a two gendered species for a reason. It works. That's what works. In a 100 years time men and women will still be having children together, and not just because they don't have a choice.

    Let me know when men start impregnating other men.

    All I wanted was for you to not state something as a fact when it wasn't proven. By all means, you can believe whatever you want, but don't force it on everyone else as if it is the truth.

    So how about this Semaphore: I'll state that I *believe* that most people or at least many many people are 100% straight, and you state that you *believe* that they are not. Until we have proof one way or the other that is. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle here. There is a huge difference between emotional attraction and physical attraction (those two things tend to coincide or sometimes conflict) and the desire to simply screw anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    I don't particularly want to believe it. I simply have no vested interest in disbelieving it, and thus the scientific evidence lead me to believe this is probably the case. Frankly, given any sort of understanding of human nature (or just nature in general), the idea that anything would stand at the extremes rather than some degrees in between is always rather baffling. It is not at all the reasonable assumption to make if it weren't for the long standing hostility towards homosexuality in western culture (which is thankfully dying out).
    If you assume that people started as straight it makes more sense. Usually biology becomes whatever is most efficient and whatever the environment permits it to be. I do not rule that out, but it's better to accept differences than turn them into a competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    I'll take that bet. I don't even know how you think my understanding of sexuality "fit" my world view, because it sure as hell looks completely unrelated to me.
    It's called projection. Everyone sees things from a unique point of view. Sooner or later you will find things that support your point of view, but at the same time, you risk not seeing things from everyone else's perspective. I would find whatever ideas oppose my ideological enemies too, but I'd rather set a good example for others to follow and make friends instead.

    Wouldn't you?

    For example, if you entered the world of religion, you'd quickly realise that you were an outsider. They can be quite stubborn too, but there are many people who are drawn to that world.

    The key here is choice. Make things a choice and we will quickly see where people stand in the ensuing chaos of people finding where they belong.
    Last edited by Garian; 2012-11-27 at 07:13 PM.

  10. #230
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Garian View Post
    No Semaphore, asking for proof through repetition is science.

    A small sample of a thousand people does not and cannot speak for 6 billion people.

    It is simply unfair to generalize.
    It's not generalizing though. It's making valid assumptions based on a valid sample size according to statistics... you know, a science. It's used by sociologists, psychologists, and pretty much any other science that requires experimentation (as in polling and similar) to be done on people, and it's NEVER done on more than 10 000 people, and there's a reason for that; the maximal error of measurement becomes irrelevant and miniscule.

    Again, by your own standards (which are frankly ridiculous), you'd have to poll the entire Earth to prove your point. You don't have to do that, though. Taking 5 000 people of both genders and reasonable age ranges and asking them the same question will give you valid evidence about a claim. Samples represent whole populations.

    Also, if scientists did what you demand, half of the sciences wouldn't exist and we'd still be in stone age.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garian View Post
    I have absolutely nothing against people with different sexualities as long as they aren't hurting others. Go wild. I've known people who have experimented only to reach the conclusion that they were straight.
    If they really did that then they're not straight. Trust me, I'm fully gay, and I would never, ever, out of curiosity, experiment with that simply because I'm 100% gay. If those people that you knew did indeed experiment, then it means that there was a spark of curiosity in them, no matter how small it may have been, and it means they were slightly bisexual to a degree (we can't know exactly). If they were fully straight, the thought of such experimentation would bear absolutely no curiosity for them.

    They just decided after experimenting or something that they'd rather lead a fully straight life and never, ever, experiment again, and made sure it goes that way by actually deceiving themselves they're fully straight. They're not, they once had a potential to do homosexual stuff, and they will always have it, sexuality doesn't change (which doesn't mean they actually will do it again, obviously). The fact they call themselves straight doesn't mean they really are.

    This is of course, reliant on the assumption that one cannot be more or less straight than any other straight person, i.e., that straight is a full extreme. For example, I'm on the other end, the full extreme of gay, and if you assume that that's the only kind of gays, and that everything else is actually bisexual (besides the straight equivalent), it means the people you knew were bisexual. Just slightly, and they stayed that way, and they will, forever, unless they're still going through puberty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garian View Post
    It actually does Semaphore. It proves that we are a two gendered species for a reason. It works. That's what works. In a 100 years time men and women will still be having children together, and not just because they don't have a choice.

    Let me know when men start impregnating other men.
    What are you trying to argue? That homosexuality/bisexuality doesn't have a biological purpose? Well, news flash, it does.

  11. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    If they really did that then they're not straight.
    It's not your place to decide what they can identify as, nor to decide what their standards are for experimentation. I've tried plenty of stuff (not speaking sexually, just in general) that I have decided wasn't for me. There's no reason different types of sex can't be the same if that's how I choose to explore and set my boundaries.

  12. #232
    She's hot. Not that that has anything to do with her ability as a politician. Just an observation.

  13. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    She's hot. Not that that has anything to do with her ability as a politician. Just an observation.
    Finally something we agree upon.

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    Finally something we agree upon.
    I changed my mind. I don't like blondes.

  15. #235
    If it was a bisexual guy, then he wouldn't have been elected.
    As soon as it involves penises people put their foot down.

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    I changed my mind. I don't like blondes.
    haha.

    Personally, I am more into the Asian persuasion myself I have noticed. But I won't lie, have found myself attracted to whites (blondes, brunets and a few redheads), blacks, asians, and indians. If they look good, they look good. Friends say my standards are too high though,lol.

    On the topic of her. Yes she looks good but when it comes to politics or any job really. I don't care if she looks like the fat girl from the Ren and Stimpy cartoons with a voice like Stephen Hawking's voice synthesizer, 3 legs and a hump. If she can do her job, that is all that matters for the job.

  17. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    It's not generalizing though. It's making valid assumptions based on a valid sample size according to statistics...
    Assumptions based on a small sample.

    It is impossible for such a small sample to speak for 6 billion+ people, and therefore it's not representative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    ...you know, a science.
    For it to be truly scientific we would need to repeat these studies with larger broader more impartial samples.

    That is not asking too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    It's used by sociologists, psychologists, and pretty much any other science that requires experimentation (as in polling and similar) to be done on people, and it's NEVER done on more than 10 000 people, and there's a reason for that; the maximal error of measurement becomes irrelevant and miniscule.
    Repeat the study a few thousand times at least. 10 000 people still can't speak for 6+ billion from all different backgrounds.

    Otherwise all those people who disliked the Mists of Pandaria trailer were right, and MOP hardly sold at all.

    Right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    Again, by your own standards (which are frankly ridiculous),
    No my standards are just thorough, and for good reason; they *need* to be.

    There are areas of study where assumptions are dangerous and unacceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    ...you'd have to poll the entire Earth to prove your point.
    That or, say, a million people several hundred times. I'd actually take that seriously then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    You don't have to do that, though. Taking 5 000 people of both genders and reasonable age ranges and asking them the same question will give you valid evidence about a claim. Samples represent whole populations.
    No. People come from different backgrounds and have been shaped differently. Everyone is biased. 5000 people is too small still even if you could ensure that people came from different backgrounds.

    If I asked 5000 atheists whether they thought God existed or not, they wouldn't speak for everyone.

    So if you asked 5000 people in a liberal university a question, I expect biased answers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    Also, if scientists did what you demand, half of the sciences wouldn't exist and we'd still be in stone age.
    It's ironic you say that, because this is exactly what science is doing: it's being too thorough.

    But that's the way it needs to be so that people don't jump to conclusions.

    The peer review process is brutal. But like I said, everyone is biased. Some people stand to gain from their opinions, and that is most certainly not science. Some people don't like the nuclear family being seen as the ideal, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    If they really did that then they're not straight. Trust me, I'm fully gay, and I would never, ever, out of curiosity, experiment with that simply because I'm 100% gay.
    Not everyone is like that. Many people have to find themselves and they do it by experimenting. Growth comes from human contact, and when someone is deprived of that contact, you can usually see the difference. A lot of people are simply ignorant about others and themselves. Time and experience usually solve that problem.

    I literally became a different person after meeting new people. I saw genuine differences that I may not have accepted before because I was ignorant.

    Experience doesn't necessarily equate to desire. Lots of men rape other men in prison and they aren't gay. They just want that release.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    If those people that you knew did indeed experiment, then it means that there was a spark of curiosity in them, no matter how small it may have been, and it means they were slightly bisexual to a degree (we can't know exactly). If they were fully straight, the thought of such experimentation would bear absolutely no curiosity for them.
    That's where we disagree. Sometimes you won't know if you like something until you have tried it. I am fairly open minded. I could kiss another man but I already know that I wouldn't like it. There's no attraction. It's just a visceral experience and some people even enjoy that and confuse it with the real thing, but it's not the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    They just decided after experimenting or something that they'd rather lead a fully straight life and never, ever, experiment again, and made sure it goes that way by actually deceiving themselves they're fully straight. They're not, they once had a potential to do homosexual stuff, and they will always have it, sexuality doesn't change (which doesn't mean they actually will do it again, obviously). The fact they call themselves straight doesn't mean they really are.

    This is of course, reliant on the assumption that one cannot be more or less straight than any other straight person, i.e., that straight is a full extreme. For example, I'm on the other end, the full extreme of gay, and if you assume that that's the only kind of gays, and that everything else is actually bisexual (besides the straight equivalent), it means the people you knew were bisexual. Just slightly, and they stayed that way, and they will, forever, unless they're still going through puberty.
    I'm sure it's true for some people. I'm sure they don't explore that side of themselves, but I very much doubt it's the majority.

    But really, why does it matter anyway? Let them decide who they want to love. Just don't try to tell them what they are or are apparently supposed to be. Such as the claim that most people fall between the extremes.

    If you want to believe that, then you are more than welcome to do so, but it's not proven science. Most men would love all women to be bi, trust me. The pressure to conform to that standard is immense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    What are you trying to argue? That homosexuality/bisexuality doesn't have a biological purpose? Well, news flash, it does.
    No, I am arguing that biology does whatever it takes to survive. If a one gendered species could survive better then we might see it. That doesn't mean that we will change into it all of a sudden or even over billions of years. Humankind has survived for a long time like this, and will continue survive in the future. Evolution keeps what works especially as the environment changes. The difference between human beings and the rest of nature is we adapt through technology. In nature, anything not cut out for it simply dies.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 10:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by parlaa View Post
    If it was a bisexual guy, then he wouldn't have been elected.
    As soon as it involves penises people put their foot down.
    Indeed.
    Last edited by Garian; 2012-11-27 at 10:42 PM.

  18. #238
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Magpai View Post
    It's not your place to decide what they can identify as, nor to decide what their standards are for experimentation. I've tried plenty of stuff (not speaking sexually, just in general) that I have decided wasn't for me. There's no reason different types of sex can't be the same if that's how I choose to explore and set my boundaries.
    Yeah, but, being straight or gay isn't about what you've decided your boundaries would be, it's about what you could do in the first place.

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    Yeah, but, being straight or gay isn't about what you've decided your boundaries would be, it's about what you could do in the first place.
    That's not really the case. Almost anyone can do anything sexually, given the right circumstances. Self identification isn't a stagnant thing, which sort of throws a monkey wrench in as well, since people's preferences change over time.

  20. #240
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Garian View Post
    That or, say, a million people several hundred times. I'd actually take that seriously then.
    Don't have enough time at the moment to reply to your entire post, just wanted to reply to this particular part though. What makes a million several hundred times acceptable and 5 000 not? 5 000 has a margin of error of 0,3%. Is that not acceptable? You've just picked a number (funnily, used to be 100 000 earlier in the thread) that you know couldn't be polled just so you can dismiss any evidence. At this point, I'm honestly not far from thinking you're trolling me with the "million people several hundred times".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •